Showing posts with label trademark. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trademark. Show all posts

Wednesday, 20 August 2014

Ralph Lauren Wins Counterfeit Case in Italian Court!





Victory for Ralph Lauren…

The Court of Milan’s intellectual property division has found Bergamo-based textile company Fratelli Martinelli Textile Srl guilty of creating and selling counterfeit merchandise with a logo intentionally similar to that of the Polo/Lauren Company.

According to a published report in the Corriere della Sera, Fratelli Martelli Textile had been selling a line of home accessories and linens with a polo-player logo it called “American Polo Sporting Club.” The court ordered Fratelli Martinelli Textile Srl to remove and destroy all related merchandise, products, and promotional materials and pay out 75,000 Euros in damages. This result comes after a lengthy legal battle that started in November 2011 when The Polo/Lauren Co. LP and its local distributor, RL Fashions of Europe, filed a complaint against Fratelli Martinelli Textile Srl.

Commenting, a spokeswoman for, Ralph Lauren said:

“We are very pleased with this decision and that the court recognized and acknowledged the uniqueness of the Ralph Lauren logo and polo player. We will continue to defend our brands and heritage against attempts to infringe on our intellectual property rights or to copy our unique trademarks and logos.”

I guess if it Ain't Ralph, If it Ain't Ralph…

Source WWD

Friday, 11 July 2014

European court confirms that Apple has the right to trademark the 3D retail layout of its flagship store design.

Apple store regent street - London
The European Court of Justice yesterday has confirmed that Apple has the right to trademark the layout its flagship store design, giving other retailers the potential to do the same.
In 2013, two years after Apple successfully registered the design of its stores with the United States patent office, the company then sought to extend the trademark internationally, but the patent and trademark office in Germany, the European Union's biggest market, refused its application saying there was nothing unique to the store design and that the request was groundless.
Apple appealed its case with a German patent court which requested a binding opinion from the European Court of Justice in Kirchberg, on whether a store design could be trademarked without any indication of size or proportion.
In its response yesterday, the court confirmed that the 3D layout of a store may “constitute a trade mark provided that it is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings…where the depicted layout departs significantly from the norm or customs of the economic sector concerned.”
The Luxembourg court added however that the uniqueness of a design must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account competing stores and the perception of the relevant public (consisting of the average consumer of the category of goods or services in question, who is reasonably well informed).
The Goss-IPgirl while conducting PhD research on innovation, ideas and originality while listening to a TED radio talk last week, on what is original? in conversation with Steven Johnson TED speaker, and author of ‘Where Good Ideas Come From,’ learned during the discussion that Apple is the most successful retailers by sales per square foot, on the ‘planet.’ So she finds it’s no wonder that they want to trademark their store. Interestingly in the radio discussion with Johnson, he tells the story of when Apple was trying to come up with the design and functioning of their retail stores:

“They were like, what's does Apple know about doing stores? They're going to open these stores in shopping malls and downtown areas, and this is going to be a big flop. They don't know what they're doing with this. And the normal way you would do this is you would look at their direct competitors in that field and say, OK, you know, we're a consumer-electronics store so let's look at Best Buy or RadioShack or something like that and see what they're doing and try to do it a little bit better. But Apple wanted to be Apple and wanted to think different and reinvent the whole process. And they were like, well, we want to create a store that's so great that people would just, like, come and hang out in it, you know, even if they don't want to buy anything, they just want to be there. So, you know, what would be an environment that's like that where the customer's really happy and really enjoys it?
And so they decided to study high-end hotel chains. And so they sent a bunch of employees into the Ritz-Carlton training program and had them, like, take this program. And they came back and they said, OK, so what secret? And one of the things that they came up with was that this, you know, the thing that people love about a high-end hotel is they love the concierge. Like, you go to the concierge and whatever you ask for, like, they're working on it and it's just such a great thing. And so they said, well, what would be the equivalent of a high-end hotel concierge in a computer store? What would that look like? And that's how they came up with [it]."

This story has a lot to say about patterns of innovation, something which the Goss-IPgirl has been thinking about in abundance recently. In his book, Steven makes the point that the most innovative, inventive people are always building on top of the ideas of other people in either very subtle and not-so-subtle ways.

What the Goss-IPgirl finds interesting here is how trademark law is being used to both protect and reflect new forms of innovation in the market. Recently there has been a surge of non-conventional trademarks that have become more widely accepted in recent times and in particular the Goss-IPgirl is seeing a modern form of trademark law emerging that extends beyond just a logo and words and embraces a more modern view on how trademarks function today. If only there was some way to protect and prevent competitors from using the same 3D shape, or sound, or smell associated with a brand or mark…

The Goss-IPgirl wonders with curiosity what impact this case will have for both trademark law and retailers. Will we see a surge of retailers rushing to trademark the layout of their store designs? Either way - this case is extremely ground breaking – because it allows other retailers to effectively trademark the retail layout of stores. Just to be clear, this doesn’t mean however, that a company with a similar or the same store layout to Apple is automatically infringing the Apple stores trademark, because essentially it would need to be shown that there is confusion on the part of the public as per similar good or services. But it does mean that a design representing the 3D layout of a retail store is capable of being registered as a trademark.  The Goss-IPgirl wonders what will be capable of being registered next?

The matter must now go back to the German Court to ultimately decide, the 31 paragraph Judgement for this case can be found here and the CJEU press release can be accessed here

Wednesday, 28 May 2014

Hermès makers of the most expensive bag in the world, is suing Birkin Bag imitators for Trademark & Trade dress infringement.


Hermès French luxury goods manufacturer is suing Birkin Bag Imitators for trademark and trade dress infringement, unfair competition and dilution by tarnishment. The case Hermès International v. Emperia, Inc. et al., 14-CV-03522 (C.D. Cal. 2014), was filed on the 7th may against Emperia, Inc., Anne-Sophie, Inc. and Top’s Handbag, Inc. for selling infringing knockoffs of the iconic Hermès Birkin bag to online retailers Charming Charlie and JustFab.
The Hermès Birkin bag, has been described as one of the most famous handbags in the world and in 2012, Hermès unveiled four new diamond-studded Birkin handbags, 2 years in the making, designed by Pierre Hardy, each worth around $1.9 Million. The Birkin handbag, has evolved into a stylish symbol of wealth over the years. While a brand-new Birkin is priced by the French fashion house at around $8,000, some models are so expensive there is a waiting list. Some bags even come with feet, like this bag that sold at auction for $125,000, with the most expensive, the Hermès Diamond with Gold Birkin bag selling at auction for $203,150, last year.


Renowned and respected British fashion commentator Colin McDowell in an article over at the Business of Fashion, late last year commented that “astronomically priced products are emblematic of exactly what’s wrong with the fashion business.” While, the Goss-IPgirl is reserved to agree, whatever happened to what Tom Ford found – “and we found after much research that, actually not much research, quite simple research, that the counterfeit customer was not our customer.” In other words, that luxury fashion brands are not that concerned in going after fast fashion counterfeit retailers?

The Defendants accused handbags seen below sell at wholesale prices of between $15.00 and $20.00, and Hermès argue that by their actions the Defendants have sought to take unfair advantage of the fame and reputation of the Birkin Bag, by leading people to believe that Plaintiff has engaged in the licensing of the design of its handbag in connection with inexpensive goods, so as to tarnish Plaintiff’s reputation for quality and commercial integrity.

Despite the high price of the Birkin Bag, Hermès argue that it is generally recognised by consumers due to considerable coverage by the press and its inclusion in story lines of television shows, such as Sex and the City. It is argued by the French manufacturer, that because of the enormous sales, extensive advertising and media coverage, the Birkin Bag’s has become so distinctive its shape has acquired secondary meaning and developed into a famous trademark.

It is argued by the French brand, that the design configuration of the Birkin Bag has become so well-recognised that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has determined that it acquired sufficient distinctiveness to merit a registration.

The shape of the bag is a registered trademark here.

According to the complaint, Emperia, began taking orders from the online retailer Just Fabulous, Inc. (“JustFab”), which does business as JustFab.com, for a handbag which closely imitated the  design of the Hermès Birkin Bag, shipping over 3000 units of this knockoff Birkin Bag to JustFab. Despite allegedly receiving cease and desist letters, and actual knowledge of the rights of Hermès in the Birkin Bag trademark the Defendants continued to expand and sell additional knockoff designs.  

The Goss-IPgirl finds this yet another fascinating case for the world of IP and Fashion.  Hermès is seeking injunctive relief, damages, statutory treble damages, costs, and accounting of profits.


More on this case soon… 

Saturday, 24 May 2014

Commercialising Creativity– Creating a Model for Success for British Fashion Designers; The British Fashion Council (BFC)

The British Fashion Council (BFC) has published a report entitled "Commercialising Creativity– Creating a Model for Success for British Fashion Designers." The British Fashion Council (BFC), commissioned this report in collaboration with the London Business School (LBS) to investigate whether there is a formula for successfully commercialising creativity in the fashion industry.

The Report counsels emerging British designers to close the gap between creativity and business. The report is geared towards revealing the “commercial secrets of success” for fashion businesses and aims to highlight the importance of commercial guidance and specialist business partners for emerging designers starting their own business.

Through interviews with a broad range of designers, businesses and industry stakeholders, including Sian Westerman, Rothschild; Andrea O’Donnell, Lane Crawford; Christopher Suarez, Nicholas Kirkwood; Helen David and Jason Broderick, Harrods; Marigay McKee, Saks Fifth Avenue, the report offers recommendations for Designers, the British Fashion Council and Government. 

The report’s seven key recommendations to designers are: 

•    Behave as a business
•    Recognise the importance of product development
•    Develop the brand’s identity and support it with a marketing and communications plan
•    Understand and address the challenges of production
•    Develop a focused sales and distribution strategy
•    Understand the importance of cashflow, funding and financing
•    Secure specialist business partners 
The authors of the report, Alessandra Basso and Alejandra Caro, MBA students from London Business School, say: “The aim of this report is to share…the importance for young creative talents to think about fashion with a business perspective….” Caroline Rush, CEO of the BFC commented: “We commissioned this report as a guide for designers who are thinking about or have recently decided to set up their own designer fashion business. It provides a check list for young designers and will help them evaluate the kind of business they want to be and the questions they should be addressing from the start.”

The Goss-IPgirl feels this is a timely report for the British Fashion industry especially when fashion design itself has the attention of government policymakers, as parliament considers greater protection for the design industry in the form of the new UK IP Bill to counter the harm associated with copying of designs so rampant across the design industry. Yet among the recommendations canvassed by the authors aside from a sentence that stated ‘be aware of trading implications such as  exchange rates and trademark registration,’ there was no mention of the value of intellectual property, which is one of the key factors that helps drive commercial success across the industry for both large and small fashion houses. The Goss-IPgirl feels this is a serious oversight and certainly would have liked to see greater attention and focus on the relevance and importance of IP in relationship to the success of designers building a strong business & brand strategy.  The report includes case studies on the success behind British designers Nicholas Kirkwood and Mary Katrantzou and the authors’ view on how British global brands Jimmy Choo and Stella McCartney found their unique selling points. Yet each of these famous British designers have used IP law to register trademarks for their brands as a strategy to protect their creative identity.

The Goss-IPgirl attended the Westminster Media Forum event “Next steps for the British Fashion Industry - Intellectual Property, Manufacturing and Talent,” event late last year on emerging public policy issues facing the British fashion industry. And as one of the guest speakers Dids Macdonald, Chief Executive Officer, ACID (Anti Copying in Design) highlighted a ‘a business plan is not a business plan without an effective IP strategy.’ 

The Goss-IPgirl feels that for emerging designers, intellectual property rights are of particular importance to this industry. Correct protection may help a designer to establish themselves in a market that is highly competitive, which can be used as a key strategy in helping build the longevity of an emerging designer. For these designers, it is significant that the wide and immediate availability of copies of their works don’t exist without attribution, as potential copying may could have an impact on a designer’s economic and cultural capital, which could undermine their reputation as a cultural producer, before they even start out. Among these recommendations the Goss-IPgirl feels that in developing a business plan and a commercial strategy, education is vital in helping a designer to know and understand when exactly there creative outputs are generating intellectual property.

Despite the BFC new report lacking a concrete focus on IP, the Goss-IPgirl feels this is an excellent resource for the fashion design community and hopes in the future that the British Fashion Council will pay greater attention to the highlighting the value and importance of intellectual property for designers in the creative economy.

For more information visit the British Fashion Council’s website

The report is available online as an industry guide for fashion designers.

Tuesday, 1 April 2014

Louboutin Loses Yet Another Trademark Case Over Red-Soled Shoes

The court puts its foot down - Fashion designer Christian Louboutin loses trademark protection in three countries for his distinctive red-soled shoes, leaving competitors free to follow in his footsteps.



Christian Louboutin, whose shoes along with Jimmy Choo, Gucci, Manolo Blahnik, Walter Steiger and Alexander McQueen is one of the most expensive and sought after shoe brands in the world, has just lost trademark protection for his distinctive red-soled shoes, in the Benelux, a three-county region including Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, in Western Europe.

The case, Christian Louboutin v. Van Dalen Footwear BV, AR 2013-6154 concerns infringement proceedings brought by Christian Louboutin against Van Dalen Footwear B.V. (a Netherlands retail store) for allegedly infringing its registered trademark by selling red-soled shoes. A court has cancelled Louboutin's registered trademark 0874489, granting Van Dalen's counterclaim for invalidity while denying Louboutin's infringement claim.

Judge Natalie Swalens of the Brussels District Court determined the decision March 20th last month, the court held firstly that Louboutin's trademark constitutes a shape mark rather than a colour mark. As such, it had to comply with the exclusions provided by article 3(1)(e) of the Trade Mark Directive, a provision of European trademark law that excludes the registration of any signs consisting of shapes that give substantial value to goods. The provision is intended to prevent the securing of a permanent monopoly in the technical, functional or aesthetic characteristics of a product or in the type of shape design which should be protected for a limited period of time, under design legislation, and thus, absent those rights should be free for other competitors to use. 

Importantly, trademarks and designs have a different legal scope; trademarks enjoy protection that is unlimited in time, rights to designs are limited. Whereas a trademark seeks to protect the identity of the origin of the goods and services, designs seek to protect the goods (and the substantial value of their appearance) in their own right
 Based on the evidence brought by Van Dalen Footwear (represented by Simmons & Simmons LLP,Amsterdam), the court found that the red sole gave the goods their substantial value, as consumers had stated that they would not have paid as much for their shoes if they had not had the red soles. As such, the red sole did not qualify for trade mark protection. Secondly, the court concluded that Louboutin's trademark lacks a distinctive character because red-soled shoes are common on the market, generally non-traditional trademarks for shapes and colours are only registrable if they have acquired distinctiveness through extensive use.

One would imagine that this comes as another blow to the iconic brand. From a business perspective, the case highlights yet again, the importance of the correct brand strategy for management of high end fashion brands. This is not the first time that the brands signature trademark has been invalidated in Europe. The French Supreme Court, Commercial Chamber, Christian Louboutin v. Zara France, Decision of 30 May 2012 also ruled that Christian Louboutin's trademark, representing a red sole, was invalid for lack of distinctiveness, It also rejected Louboutin's unfair competition claims, stating, that the reputation of Louboutin's red shoe soles rather relate to the concept than to the trademark, asserting that Louboutin could not claim a monopoly on the concept of having red soles on women's shoes, despite claims brought by Louboutin that by using red soles, Zara would be unduly benefiting from Louboutin's investments.

Interestingly, the Belgian approach and the French approach stand in contrast to the US position in Christian Louboutin SA v Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holding, Inc, US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, No 11-3303-cv, 696 F.3d 206 (N.Y.) 5 September 2012. Where the US Court of Appeals held the red sole mark registered by Christian Louboutin to be valid and enforceable when limited to a red lacquered outsole contrasting with the colour of the rest of the shoe. This may because unlike the EU, The U.S offers a much more limited scope of protection for fashion designs, while countries in the EU have the availability of design protection for both registered and unregistered fashion designs under EU Design Regulation, as well as copyright protection for certain aspects of a design and also trademarks. The U.S does not offer the same tailored system of protection, and as such, the main source of protection available for fashion is through Trademarks.

This is one of the few court decisions addressing how fashion-industry participants may protect the distinctive features of their designs. The iconic brands monochromatic red sole shoes have been sold since 1992, and can sell for more than £4,000 a pair. The Louboutin case is a good illustration of the difficulties in registering aspects colour and shape marks as trademarks, and of protecting trade dress under trademark and unfair competition laws. Courts have shown themselves to be quite strict in determining the validity of non-traditional trademarks, and under the influence of European Union law, the case highlights that the requirements for the validity of non-traditional trademarks, such as shape marks is quite challenging.

In the world of fashion, how brands protect themselves across international boundaries is big business.  One of the strongest appeals of luxury brands is the exclusivity and status that comes from owning a designer product, whether it be shoes, a bag or clothing that is instantly recognisable. In an industry where copying is rife, intellectual property and in particular trademark protection is usually a fashion brands most important and valuable asset.   

Trademark loses for luxury brands mark the end of exclusivity.

The success of fashion is based on commercial strategies. It was only recently that Gucci lost the rights to use its iconic interlocking GG trademark in the UK. Trademark loses for luxury brands mark the end of exclusivity. If anyone can wear a red sole shoe then what makes it exclusive? The significance of this is huge, Not only do trademark loses dilute the significance of the brand, but mean the blurring of the boundaries of social class, through which fashion products become more readily available to everyone.

As brands strive harder to build exclusivity; it will be the consumer whom feels the impact most detrimentally.

Without the ability to claim exclusive use of the red sole, there’s little to separate the company’s products from its competition, this may spur more innovation from luxury brands in the form of their designs. But, as brands strive harder to build exclusivity; The Goss-IPgirl suspects that it will be the consumer whom feels the impact most detrimentally.

It may come as no surprise that the Goss-IPgirl, does like her Louboutins and with the financial stakes so high, she wonders with passionate curiosity if the Louboutin brand will be appealing this case? The judgment if anything shows that Louboutin may have chosen the wrong strategy for the protection of its red soles. If Louboutin had registered a colour mark for the colour red, only for soles of high-heeled shoes in class 25, or gone down the design right route it may have had a more successful outcome in this case. 

By Tania Phipps-Rufus

Is a Visiting Lecturer in IP and Doctoral PhD candidate at the University of Bristol, She is also a Researcher on Fashion and IP for the centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy, University of Glasgow.